I would hope the straw buyer gets the book thrown at her.

[fencer]

The current thread title fits this story perfectly:

Calif. mom who received $4.9M after police killed her son arrested for buying guns for other son, gang

A California woman who received a nearly $5 million settlement after the police killed her son has been arrested for using some of that money to buy guns for another son and gang members.

www.fox10phoenix.com

Rep point for being anti - dupe. Zappa is the man. This should be a tutorial on how to post relevant subject matter in a thread without creating a separate thread.

As for the alleged perp in this post, there is really no other way to describe her other than stupid bitch.
One son dies in a gang related shooting. You encourage your other son, just 14 years old, to participate in the same gang, which you are obviously in or supporting.
Get a big settlement, but rather than move to get your kid out of the thug life, maybe set up a college fund and buy a decent house, you use the funds to elevate your 14 year olds status in a gang. Mother of the year award right there.
Within 3 months of the settlement, buy 20+ guns. In California. That won't stand out at all. Dumbass.
She should be charged with murder, or at the very least, accessory to murder, along with all of the other charges. She should spend the rest of her days in prison

 

[CrackPot]

They are now an instrument of policy. There was a time when a AR lower was "not a handgun" and could be bought out of state. Receivers are now a specifically listed type so they no longer long guns and therefore not allowed for out of state purchase - with no change in law.

Help me understand what you are saying.

18 USC 922(b)(3)
(b)It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(3)
any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

So the law clearly says the only exception is rifle or shotgun.

18 USC 921(a)(7)
(7) The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

18 USC 921(a)(5)
(5) The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.

So the definition of both rifle and shotgun are part of USC and not a CFR. The law seems to cover the case of a receiver (AR lower) not being lawful to transfer across state lines. Had they manipulated a CFR to change definitions I would understand what you are saying.

I can imagine that in the past FFLs did not properly understand the law and would transfer lowers or other non-handguns thinking that is what the law said when it only exempts rifles and shotguns. No doubt this resulted in an ATF clarification/notification to get people back in compliance (or lots of findings during audits)

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Help me understand what you are saying.
.......
So the law clearly says the only exception is rifle or shotgun.

Glad to clarify. For starters, you are 100% correct in the above statement. What you seem to be missing is that the change goes beyond a "clarification" but an actual change to the form. The did not modify the CFR, just the 4473.

The BATFE used to consider the stripped lower to a rifle to be a rifle. No longer.

The old 4473 has a rifle/shotgun or handgun checkbox. Rifle would be checked for the lower for a rifle. This is from the July 2005 version of the 4473:


The current 4473 form has 3 categories. This was done so that rifle stripped lowers, particularly AR15 lowers, would not longer be considered "long guns" and thus legal for sale to non-residents. This is from the current 4473:



Note the "Other Firearm (frame, receiver, etc.). This is how a sneaky bureaucratic move made a fundamental change to federal gun law, at least on an "as applied" basis.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I feel the same, I know you are looking for something very specific. To take it a step further, I'm in Louisiana you're somewhere North. I see it, grab it for you and send it up to you. If we are both legal buyers, which is another story to a certain extent, what evil have we done?

The old malum per-se vs malum-prohibitum distinction.

 

[CrackPot]

Glad to clarify. For starters, you are 100% correct in the above statement. What you seem to be missing is that the change goes beyond a "clarification" but an actual change to the form. The did not modify the CFR, just the 4473.

The BATFE used to consider the stripped lower to a rifle to be a rifle. No longer.

The old 4473 has a rifle/shotgun or handgun checkbox. Rifle would be checked for the lower for a rifle. This is from the July 2005 version of the 4473:

View attachment 531607
The current 4473 form has 3 categories. This was done so that rifle stripped lowers, particularly AR15 lowers, would not longer be considered "long guns" and thus legal for sale to non-residents. This is from the current 4473:

View attachment 531606

Note the "Other Firearm (frame, receiver, etc.). This is how a sneaky bureaucratic move made a fundamental change to federal gun law, at least on an "as applied" basis.

While I understand and appreciate your perspective I am not sure I find it sneaky or an administrative change inconsistent with the law. Considering a lower a rifle seems outside the legal definition of a rifle under USC. It appears the old 4473 allowed for an extra legal activity through its lack of clarity.

I am sure their motives were not pure but the outcome would appear correct. Not unlike the AG office waking up and realizing a SBR is a “firearm” and subject to the roster when they were trying to screw us all over on the 14” shockwaves.

 

[drgrant]

While I understand and appreciate your perspective I am not sure I find it sneaky or an administrative change inconsistent with the law. Considering a lower a rifle seems outside the legal definition of a rifle under USC. It appears the old 4473 allowed for an extra legal activity through its lack of clarity.

I am sure their motives were not pure but the outcome would appear correct. Not unlike the AG office waking up and realizing a SBR is a “firearm” and subject to the roster when they were trying to screw us all over on the 14” shockwaves.

Wasn't there a transitional thing at one point, before "other" - where a rifle had to be at some level of intactness before it could transfer as a rifle- and ergo, you would have a complete lower that could go as a "rifle" but not a stripped one? Then I think the ATF went to "the only thing that can cross the counter as a rifle is a fully operable rifle"

ETA: My memory is failing me- It could have also been that OTHER existed, but they allowed people to "cheat a little" on rifles by requiring at least a rifle stock; but then eventually they just moved to eliminate that "exception" completely, in an administrative sense.

 

[bfm]

My guess is a combination of mouth diarrhea + clueless about gun laws. He probably made a deal with her to do it, but didn't impress upon her how serious an offense it was (for fear of spooking her), so when the gun store employee asked an otherwise benign question she gave away the fact that it wasn't for her.

Anyone remember the episode of Magnum P.I. where he get a woman to do a straw purchase for him? He wrote it all down and she asks for Zero, Zero buckshot.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

While I understand and appreciate your perspective I am not sure I find it sneaky or an administrative change inconsistent with the law. Considering a lower a rifle seems outside the legal definition of a rifle under USC. It appears the old 4473 allowed for an extra legal activity through its lack of clarity.

I am sure their motives were not pure but the outcome would appear correct. Not unlike the AG office waking up and realizing a SBR is a “firearm” and subject to the roster when they were trying to screw us all over on the 14” shockwaves.

There are other nuances in the law you quote that are interesting, like loaning for sporting purposes. Consider that the BATFE has rules that action shooting sports do not meet the definition of sporting purposes, because doing so would lead to the conclusion that LCMM (large capacity military magazines) would then meet the definition of sporting arms. Given this interpretation, the federal loan exemption would not apply to IDPA, USPSA, etc.

 

[CrackPot]

There are other nuances in the law you quote that are interesting, like loaning for sporting purposes. Consider that the BATFE has rules that action shooting sports do not meet the definition of sporting purposes, because doing so would lead to the conclusion that LCMM (large capacity military magazines) would then meet the definition of sporting arms. Given this interpretation, the federal loan exemption would not apply to IDPA, USPSA, etc.

Back to us both being sure their motives are not pure...